PDA

View Full Version : President Bush's Choice


Ranman
18-10-2005, 11:27 PM
How do you feel about our Presidents choice
for the Supreme Court Justice Harriet Miers?
Will she take away a womens right to choose?
Will she vote to take away more of our freedoms?
Will she throw Gay people back in the closet?

Is she really the best choice Bush could pick?
Or is George suffering Cocaine flashbacks from the 70's

hasselbrad
18-10-2005, 11:47 PM
I don't know. I don't know anything about her because there isn't really much in the way of decisions to go by...since she's never been a judge!
So, that said...I'm not very impressed with the choice.
I don't think she'll be much of a difference maker. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it would mean the authority would go back to the states, which, in my opinion, is where it belongs anyway.
If she's a strict Constitutionalist, the rights we were guaranteed in that document should be safe. Problem is, too many "privileges" have become confused with "rights" in this country. My fear is that she is more of a right-wing activist. But, I don't know. And, if it's any comfort, many judges appointed by certain administrations for the beliefs they were believed to hold, voted exactly the opposite once on the bench.
Short answer...it's nothing to get your drawers too balled up over.
Personally, I think this will be a really big mess for Georgie Boy. I would much rather see an appointee with a conserva-centrist background. This just smacks of the kind of old boy/gal network horseshit that his administration has been accused of.

Ashley
19-10-2005, 12:50 AM
My big thing is just what Brad said in his second sentence: She's never been a judge! I don'tknow though, I need to read up more about her. It just seems she came out of left field.

Rob The BLack Douglas
19-10-2005, 01:48 AM
The problem is the woman is to easily swayed, she has attended five or six different denominational church's in her life and she has passed the religious test to recieve the republican nomination.

http://billmon.org/

scroll down to the topic SUBPOENA CITY and read about what is going on behind the scenes when it comes to Miers.

As others have said, she has no experience as a judge and that is disturbing. She is also Bush loyalist and his personal lawyer. That means she has no backbone.

Sadly womens, rights, minority rights, and gay rights are fixing to take a major nosedive under the more and more conservative courts. The theocracy is coming.

Hazzle
19-10-2005, 06:30 AM
If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it would mean the authority would go back to the states, which, in my opinion, is where it belongs anyway.
If she's a strict Constitutionalist, the rights we were guaranteed in that document should be safe.

The document is over 100 years old. How can it possibly still be entirely relevant in today's world? The right to bear arms, for example, has surely come under a great deal of threat after schoolyard shootings (which were hardly an everyday occurence in the 19th century). Of course that won't be done away with because the Christian Right has no issues with it, it's part of American culture, but abortion? Of course not!

Let me ask you Brad, is privacy a constitutionally protected right? Because that's been held to be the case in issues of contraception, marriage and various privacy torts, as well as abortion. What about the right to keep your medical records private? The right not to have invasive surgery done without consent? These all come under "privacy" and if we're going to allow a doctrine of autonomy over one's body (such as not allowing hospitals to harvest organs unless someone consents) then that covers abortion too.

The right of freedom of contract is covered by the constitution under Substantive Due Process. Under that theory, marriage is protected, as such there is a right to be married. FREEDOM of contract would dictate that one is free to pick the spouse, whether they be of the same gender or not. So gay marriage is also constitutionally protected.

I'm not in favour of broadening the constitutionally protected rights, don't get me wrong, but if you go part of the way down that road, you have to go to the full logical conclusion. Either scrap the rights to privacy and freedom of contract or allow everyone to exercise them fully. After all, what good are rights if not equal?

(PS: On topic...I don't agree with the appointment as she's not got any judicial experience. That's a bad start.)

hasselbrad
19-10-2005, 03:02 PM
If she has no judicial experience at all, is she not terribly influence able by the one who appointed her?
Maybe that’s the reason Bush appointed her.
Won't she just be his mask in the Supreme Court?

Puppet is the word I believe you are looking for, and if it is, you are correct. Mark your calendars folks...I agree with Flightfreak completely here. ;)

The document is over 100 years old. How can it possibly still be entirely relevant in today's world? The right to bear arms, for example, has surely come under a great deal of threat after schoolyard shootings (which were hardly an everyday occurence in the 19th century). Of course that won't be done away with because the Christian Right has no issues with it, it's part of American culture, but abortion? Of course not!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The wording of this seems to say, and this has been argued by gun-control activists, that the National Guard is this militia, thereby nullifying any individual right to bear arms. However, under federal law, every able-bodied American male from 17-44 is considered a member of the United States militia.

The wording of this may seem silly and outdated, but as federal appeals judge Alex Kozinski noted, "the simple truth-born of experience-is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do, but few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake free people get to make only once."

Let me ask you Brad, is privacy a constitutionally protected right? Because that's been held to be the case in issues of contraception, marriage and various privacy torts, as well as abortion. What about the right to keep your medical records private? The right not to have invasive surgery done without consent? These all come under "privacy" and if we're going to allow a doctrine of autonomy over one's body (such as not allowing hospitals to harvest organs unless someone consents) then that covers abortion too.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The way I read this, yes.
Some states have the death penalty, others do not.
I just think it should be handled in this manner, but then, I am a Son of the Confederacy...so I'm all about the states rights. ;)
Of course, the Fourth Amendment is often stretched to protect activities I'm sure our founding fathers did not have in mind. Currently, the ACLU is defending NAMBLA members in cases of pedophilia, using the Fourth as a shield of privacy, so, as you can see, privacy does need some limits.
The Constitution was written to protect citizens from government intrusion, not legally protect them to do anything they want. This is why I'd like to pinch Bush's head off for his gay marriage Constitutional amendment proposal.
But then, Haz, you are the lawyer or barrister...whatever you wankers call it...and I'm just a lowly college dropout. ;)

Hazzle
19-10-2005, 06:11 PM
Puppet is the word I believe you are looking for, and if it is, you are correct. Mark your calendars folks...I agree with Flightfreak completely here. ;)

Me too.

RE: Your point on gun control (rather than just quote it) I see it but I think the potential risk of tyranny versus the very real dangers of guns in the hands of children has to be balanced in favour of the latter. How many children every year die from gun-related injuries every year in the US? That's not just crimes, what about accidents where a kid finds his parent's gun? These are real deaths, the potential for tyranny, whilst a very valid argument, is just a theory. I see the point, I just think that when balancing the two sides, you have a real and present danger versus a theoretical and non-present one.

Some states have the death penalty, others do not.

Don't get me started on that. I agree with Justice Blackmun in Callins v Collins where he said:

"From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored...to develop...rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor...Rather than continue to coddle the court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved...I feel...obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies... Perhaps one day this court will develop procedural rules or verbal formulas that actually will provide consistency, fairness and reliability in a capital-sentencing scheme. I am not optimistic that such a day will come. I am more optimistic, though, that this court eventually will conclude that the effort to eliminate arbitrariness while preserving fairness 'in the infliction of [death] is so plainly doomed to failure that it and the death penalty must be abandoned altogether.' (Godfrey v. Georgia, 1980) I may not live to see that day, but I have faith that eventually it will arrive. The path the court has chosen lessen us all."

Privacy does need some limits, but I believe in autonomy over one's body and freedom to marry whoever one wishes, so long as there's consent.

Paedophilia is a minefield that is tricky. I personally believe in stopping the facade of making possession of child pornography a crime. It's a speech-crime, and I don't agree with those. Rather than punish those who get turned on by such things for their sick perversions (let's not forget we'd have called homosexuality a sick perversion not so long ago, and many still do) let's punish those who actually make the pornography and in doing so actually harm children. That's a legitimate route to take, as the law exists to protect people from harm.

I'm not a lawyer or a barrister mate :p I'm a failed lawyer ;) I do however hope to put that right eventually...although I'm enjoying sales, that being said.

hasselbrad
19-10-2005, 06:46 PM
A kid is more likely to choke to death on dinner than die of an accidental gunshot wound. Ditto drowning...pool or bathtub...car accidents, bike accidents, etc. While the school shootings get a lot of press, they are few and far between. And, usually with guns obtained illegally.
The CDC has also done a study that says the Brady Bill has done nothing to curb handgun violence, because there is no waiting period on a gun purchased on the street.
I could dig up the stats, but I can't be bothered with that now. I've got to go get some cash for this weekend.
Pantyhose...check
.32 handgun with tape on the handle...check

BRB
:p

Ranman
19-10-2005, 09:13 PM
How can Bush say she is the most qualified person for the job?

Seems to me Judge Wopner from the people's court is more qualified.

hasselbrad
19-10-2005, 09:18 PM
How can Bush say she is the most qualified person for the job?

Seems to me Judge Wopner from the people's court is more qualified.

Seems to me you'd be right. :err:

Hazzle
20-10-2005, 05:52 AM
A kid is more likely to choke to death on dinner than die of an accidental gunshot wound. Ditto drowning...pool or bathtub...car accidents, bike accidents, etc. While the school shootings get a lot of press, they are few and far between. And, usually with guns obtained illegally.

Yeah, but we don't give kids a right not to chew :p. Or a right to dunk other kids' heads under water. A gun is a product that is inherently dangerous, if anything I'm surprised it hasn't failed a product liability suit...I predict that like tobacco it will do one day...

Then the constitution will be up in smoke...

hasselbrad
20-10-2005, 01:11 PM
Yeah, but we don't give kids a right not to chew :p. Or a right to dunk other kids' heads under water. A gun is a product that is inherently dangerous, if anything I'm surprised it hasn't failed a product liability suit...I predict that like tobacco it will do one day...

Then the constitution will be up in smoke...

A swimming pool is inherently dangerous, if you don't know how to swim. My point is, the statistics are actually very, very low. You are right though. I'm shocked the money-grubbing whore-yers in this country haven't managed to bring some sort of class-action suit. Maybe the NRA has told them that they will shoot them if they do.
Of course...after this little discussion...some moron here shot his 15 year old girlfriend in the face with a 9mm. Claims they were "playing" and that he didn't realize the safety was off. Of course, it was an illegally obtained firearm and he's in jail.
When our Constitution goes up in smoke...I'm moving to England.
So you'd better pray it doesn't. ;)

Jasmine
22-10-2005, 02:33 AM
I'm supposed to be reading this article in Newsweek about her this weekend for my Current Issues class.. when I do, I'll get back to you with my *educated opinion* since.. then I'll actually know what I'm talking about. But as of now, all I can say is that I feel like the right wing is taking over the Supreme Court which scares the shit out of me. Canada here I come. (That's where I've got to go to get married anyway.)

Hazzle
22-10-2005, 01:01 PM
A swimming pool is inherently dangerous, if you don't know how to swim. My point is, the statistics are actually very, very low. You are right though. I'm shocked the money-grubbing whore-yers in this country haven't managed to bring some sort of class-action suit. Maybe the NRA has told them that they will shoot them if they do.
Of course...after this little discussion...some moron here shot his 15 year old girlfriend in the face with a 9mm. Claims they were "playing" and that he didn't realize the safety was off. Of course, it was an illegally obtained firearm and he's in jail.

And she's still dead. A swimming pool is only inherently dangerous if you don't use it properly (ie swim properly) however a gun is inherently dangerous exactly WHEN it's used for its designed purpose. Its designed purpose is to harm, so even when used correctly, a gun is dangerous.

If that isn't a perfect product liability case I don't know what is. I think the fear is the constitutional argument may well trump the statutes on product liability, that's why there's been no suit.

No need to hate on the lawyers my man ;) They're not all mega-rich money-grabbing jerks.

When our Constitution goes up in smoke...I'm moving to England.
So you'd better pray it doesn't. ;)

I'd welcome you to our civilised country any day...

hasselbrad
25-10-2005, 05:55 PM
I'd welcome you to our civilised country any day...

Sweet. My plane arrives at 11:45 PM GMT.

Ranman
16-11-2005, 09:21 AM
Even Google has an opinion (provided by Kahnatic)

<kahnatic> for some fun
<kahnatic> 1) go to google.com
<kahnatic> 2) type in FAILURE
<kahnatic> 3) hit the IM FEELING LUCKY button
<kahnatic> 4) hilarious

deviljet88
16-11-2005, 11:30 AM
Pfft that's old. Go type in PORN and hit the I'm feeling lucky button.

Edit: Actually... that isn't old. It doesn't link back to Bush anymore, but to failuremag.com... hmm... Sign of change. Oh wait, the editor's column, yay, idiocy.

aspro
20-11-2005, 09:46 PM
The actual 'google bomb' was miserable failure.